PDA

View Full Version : Al Gore backlash: Why environmentalists are celebrating rising CO2 levels



music
2nd June 2013, 21:24
.

Al Gore backlash (http://www.naturalnews.com/040588_carbon_dioxide_environmentalists_Al_Gore.html)

Thank goodness carbon dioxide levels are finally rising ever so slightly in our atmosphere, bringing much-needed carbon dioxide to the plants and forests of the world which have been starving for CO2. The lack of CO2 in the atmosphere is one of the most devastating limiting factors for plant growth and reforestation of the planet, and at just 400ppm -- that's just 400 micrograms per kilogram -- carbon dioxide is so low that Earth's plant life can barely breathe.

Throughout the history of our planet, atmospheric CO2 was much, much higher, and it supported eras of lush rainforests, rapid plant growth and far greater biodiversity than what we see today. In fact, 525 million years ago, Earth's atmospheric CO2 levels were as high at 7,000 ppm -- and far from the planet "dying" as global warming hoax pushers try to claim, it was one of the most lush and biodiverse times in our planet's history.

As the following chart [see source material, link above] clearly shows, CO2 levels are at one of their lowest levels in the history of our planet:


Carbon dioxide is greening the planet
Global warming alarmists and hoaxers, of course, have warned that CO2 levels crossing the threshold of 400ppm will spell certain doom for the human race. What they don't mention is that rising CO2 levels actually set off a "global greening," complete with forests re-growing at an accelerated rate, gardens producing more food and arid regions seeing a restoration of green plants.

In fact, a study just published in Geophysical Research Letters has documented that a 14% increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere gave rise to a 5% - 10% increase in green foliage, with a total increase in plant "cover" of 11%. That study is entitled, CO2 fertilisation has increased maximum foliage cover across the globe's warm, arid environments.

That study refers to CO2 as a "fertilizer" that causes a "fertilization effect." As the study authors explain:

Our results confirm that the anticipated CO2 fertilization effect is occurring alongside ongoing anthropogenic perturbations to the carbon cycle and that the fertilisation effect is now a significant land surface process.

CO2, you see, isn't a "pollutant." It's a nutrient!

By the way, your body is 18% carbon and 65% oxygen. (I'm going to pre-empt some stupid Facebook trolls who will say, "Not true! Your body is 75% water!" by answering in advance that H2O is made of hydrogen and oxygen. Hydrogen has such a low atomic weight, however, that it doesn't contribute more than about 10% to your total body mass. Then again, trying to teach science to Facebook trolls is a lot like trying to teach pigs to write javascript.)

In total, you are 83% made of the same stuff as CO2, just in a different molecular arrangement. CO2 is, of course, constantly reformed and recycled throughout the planetary ecosystem. Ocean biological activity alone produces 90 billion tons of CO2 each year -- many multiples of the far smaller amount produced by human activity (about 6 billion tons). If CO2 alone caused global warming and global death, we'd all be dead by now. It turns out that CO2 actually helps fertilize the growth and restoration of plants and forests!


Ocean plants love carbon dioxide, too!
By the way, it's not just land plants that are starving for CO2. Marine plants also need more CO2, and most marine biology came into being in a time when CO2 levels were far higher than they are today.

The higher CO2 levels are in the atmosphere, the more CO2 gets absorbed into ocean water, making it available to help marine plants thrive. This CO2, importantly, is also used to build coral reefs.

Wait a second! Haven't we all been told that CO2 is destroying coral reefs? I used to think so, too, because I hadn't scrutinized the science closely enough. But if you really dig into this issue, it turns out that coral reefs are largely being destroyed by toxic chemical runoff from human activity, not from CO2.


If you love plants and forests and gardens, you gotta love CO2
The bottom line in all this is that if you love plant life on planet Earth, you've gotta love carbon dioxide. CO2 is the key nutrient that's needed to bolster the rapid growth of nearly all plants, and right now Earth's atmosphere is in a state of carbon dioxide deficiency.

That's why professional greenhouse owners actually pump CO2 into their greenhouses to increase plant production.

Rising CO2 levels are a huge benefit to plant life across the planet. Hare-brained plans to "sequester" CO2 will cause an artificial reduction in this crucial plant nutrient, resulting in the mass global die-off of plants and the thinning of forests. Carbon sequestration is, quite literally, plant starvation and an attack against Mother Nature.

So don't buy into the disinfo hawked by CO2 alarmists like Al Gore. They are pushing an utterly fictional story about how "CO2 will destroy the world" and end human civilization if we don't stop its rise. I welcome rising CO2 levels and being scientifically trained, I know that carbon dioxide only exists at less than 1/1000th of the atmosphere. In fact, it's currently at less than half of 1/1000th of the atmosphere. That's an extremely small amount of CO2 -- just 400ppm. And it's just barely enough to keep Earth's plants from dying en masse.

Tesseract
2nd June 2013, 22:58
I think we ought to be careful what we wish for. Elevated CO2 levels can lessen the nutritional value of plants and also increase their toxicity, see the items below. There are favourable, particular, arguments whatever side of the debate you wish to promote. However, the biosphere is so complex - just to understand the effects on a single plant species could necessitate years of work. In writing that article, the author has created an indictment of the institution that provided the writer with his or her scientific training.

I am amazed that there are people who would blindly usher in a new era of elevated CO2. Frankly, for the most part I think that those who are in that camp are motivated not by a desire for a greener planet, but by a deep set antagonism they have to the ideologies of non-conservatives [I'm not stating this is the case for the OP or others in this thread]. I attended a talk by Christopher Monckton (millionaire conservative and staunch defender of the Vietnam war). He made the argument that impoverished nations would benefit from higher CO2 levels (again, see my items below) - as if he had suddenly found compassion for the poor. And, of course, he never mentioned that he was an adviser to Margaret Thatcher at the time when she severely cut British foreign aid, earning her the name 'Thatcher aid snatcher'. I'm sure Lord Monckton opposed those aid cuts most vehemently.

Some items regarding food crops:

Source: http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/2891924.htm


"Leaves of plants grown at elevated carbon dioxide have a lot less protein wheat, barley, rice, all of those in probably only 50 to 60 years time will have 15 to 20% less protein in them than they do now. "



"NARRATION
Cassava is a staple food for much of the developing world. But if it is not prepared properly it can cause a serious lifelong disease called Konzo. Julie Cliff has been a medical doctor working in Mozambique since the 70's and has seen the effects of cyanide in cassava first hand.

Dr Julie Cliff
In Mozambique the disease that gives us most problems is a disease called Konzo and that's a permanent paralysis. And they get that when they eat too much cassava. The first time it happened was 1981. We went to investigate it and we got a message saying it was polio. But we soon realised it wasn't polio because the symptom was quite different.

NARRATION
Back in the lab Ros's group have been looking at how rising CO2 will affect the cyanide levels of cassava.

Dr Ros Gleadow
We grew cassava at three different concentrations of carbon dioxide. Today's air, one and a half times the amount of carbon dioxide and twice the carbon dioxide of today. And we found that cyanogen concentration in the leaves increased.

Dr Graham Phillips
So as we get more Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere these will contain more cyanide?

Emeritus Prof. Howard Bradbury
More cyanide yes. The yield from the roots which is the main thing, will go down. So that is the most worrying aspect.

Dr Ros Gleadow
I feel sort of slightly uncomfortable with having discovered something so bizarre that the plants actually made less tubers when we grew them at elevated carbon dioxide. But they did. It is all very highly balanced in plants, the ratio of the proteins and the toxins. When you grow plants at elevated carbon dioxide the plants are more efficient so they can grow really well. And at the same time allocate more of their resources to defence."

The other issue, that the global warming debate normally overshadows, is the finite supply of our carbon based resources. We must curtail our use of these in order to make them last longer. And, if ever civilization has to re-build following some global calamity, it might benefit those unfortunate generation(s) to have available some easily accessed coal and oil. So, my view is that we should ween ourselves off fossil fuels even if global warming is a non event, and even if elevated CO2 helps plants to grow.

music
3rd June 2013, 14:07
I see no proof here - no links to source material , no publication, but even that is not a guarantee for agenda free science. There are variables not discussed, and how about the variable of vested interest in climate uncertainty? The science on both sides of the climate-change debate is heavily flawed, full of omitted data, massaged data, inappropriate statistical analysis, and there is no reason to believe this (or the article I quoted above) are agenda free.

I will offer though, that in direct opposition to what we were promised, we now have a global carbon-trading system that achieves nothing but the syphoning of money from the poor to the rich and this kind of makes it look like that was the intention of the global warming scare all along.

Look at this quote, for example, from the article:

Leaves of plants grown at elevated carbon dioxide have a lot less protein wheat, barley, rice, all of those in probably only 50 to 60 years time will have 15 to 20% less protein in them than they do now.

What is wrong with this picture? When was the last time you ate wheat, barley or rice leaves? We generally eat the grain. You think they might have mentioned that.

These are closed system greenhouse experiments from what I can see, and therefore they function from a limited, not a synergistic system. What of nitrogen fixation, in legumous and other fixing plants? Not tested. What of generational adaptation, and morphological and physiological curve normalisation? The koala bit - "everyone loves them, throw that in, noone will know that this is vague supposition with no proof, no one will know that koalas can smell the chemical composition of foliage, and may well just seek out a new set of primary browse trees based on chemical composition, or that they could most likely offset toxic load by eating more oaks, melaleuca, callistemon and other medicinal foliage, and my tenure at the uni is coming up, I need grant money, they are throwing money at work that promotes the danger of CO2, ... "

... and so the merry-go-round continues and we are left no wiser than we were before.

If I didn't already say so, the above mentioned article shows no indications of robust science.

Fossil fuels? Is a red herring maybe? I am certain we already have other technology, it is impossible for us not too. But "they" will use the oil card in the same way they use everything - to their benefit, and our detriment.

music
3rd June 2013, 14:10
Just found this in the comments to that article:


By the way, Africans tend to choose cassava varieties with high cyagenicity, because they yield more (due to less pest attack) and in some instances because it ensures the crop won't be stolen. Women grow the crop, and ferment the pounded tubers to detoxify them. This process takes several days. In conflict zones, passing militia take whatever they can glean from fields but they won't take cassava because they can't process it. Konzo generally only arises in times of hunger, when desparate people are too impatient to wait for the detoxification process.

CdnSirian
3rd June 2013, 14:28
"I will offer though, that in direct opposition to what we where promised, we now have a global carbon-trading system that achieves nothing but the syphoning of money from the poor to the rich and this kind of makes it look like that was the intention of the global warming scare all along." - Music

"Winners and Losers" the same old paradigm. From 2011: yup it's all about money. "agenda free science" seems to be an oxymoron.

B9schtvCvIo

http://evofarm.com/aquaponics/ Could the food supply ever be localized...everywhere?

Thanks Music for this important topic.

Lazlo
3rd June 2013, 15:10
For the author's rantings about facebook trolls who do not understand science, the below quote is one of the biggest facepalms I have experienced in a long time. :doh::der:

"By the way, your body is 18% carbon and 65% oxygen. (I'm going to pre-empt some stupid Facebook trolls who will say, "Not true! Your body is 75% water!" by answering in advance that H2O is made of hydrogen and oxygen. Hydrogen has such a low atomic weight, however, that it doesn't contribute more than about 10% to your total body mass. Then again, trying to teach science to Facebook trolls is a lot like trying to teach pigs to write javascript.)

In total, you are 83% made of the same stuff as CO2, just in a different molecular arrangement..."

That "molecular arrangement" is indeed oh so important. C6H5OH, that's Carbolic Acid: Carbon, Hydrogen, and Oxygen.

Daozen
3rd June 2013, 15:24
Industrial Hemp + Bamboo >>> Al Gore.

Bubu
4th June 2013, 01:16
What are we gonna do if they hoard atmospheric CO2
http://www.co2captureproject.org/
http://www.chevron.com/stories/?utm_campaign=Asia+%26+Middle+East+-+Energy+Sources&utm_content=slZagKVfd|pcrid|17962895929|pkw|carbon%20capture|pmt|b#/allstories/climatechangearthurlee
Leaves of plants grown at elevated carbon dioxide have a lot less protein wheat, barley, rice, all of those in probably only 50 to 60 years time will have 15 to 20% less protein in them than they do now.
I have learned that my instinct is far better than laboratory experiments which are for the most part paid for by business interest. Between the monsanto genetics and the manufactured food,,, http://nano.foe.org.au/node/198. I will prefer the less nutritious chemical free ones.
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?59693-Global-Warming-hoax-an-strategy-to-control-food-supply

bennycog
4th June 2013, 02:12
We have a couple politicians fighting the climate change issue. only to want to be able to go back to utilising coal in large quantities again..
I agree that it will bring back many jobs to Australia and help in our financial departments, but we should not close down any alternative energy sites like Germany has.
Mother earth gave us all this energy to use. But we should have already moved on in our ways...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/06/24/could_australia_blow_apart_the_great_global_warming_scare_97148.html

" a couple of excerpts from this site, well worth the read"

There is rising recognition that introduction of a carbon tax under the guise of "cap and trade" will be personally costly, economically disruptive to society and tend to shift classes of jobs offshore. Moreover, despite rising carbon dioxide concentrations, global warming seems to have taken a holiday….

With public perceptions changing so dramatically and quickly it is little wonder Ian Plimer's latest book, Heaven and Earth, Global Warming: The Missing Science, has been received with such enthusiasm and is into its third print run in as many weeks. [It's now up to the fifth printing.]

The public is receptive to an exposé of the many mythologies and false claims associated with anthropogenic global warming and are welcoming an authoritative description of planet Earth and its ever-changing climate in readable language.

Much of what we have read about climate change, [Plimer] argues, is rubbish, especially the computer modeling on which much current scientific opinion is based, which he describes as "primitive."…

The Earth's climate is driven by the receipt and redistribution of solar energy. Despite this crucial relationship, the sun tends to be brushed aside as the most important driver of climate. Calculations on supercomputers are primitive compared with the complex dynamism of the Earth's climate and ignore the crucial relationship between climate and solar energy.

To reduce modern climate change to one variable, CO2, or a small proportion of one variable—human-induced CO2—is not science. To try to predict the future based on just one variable (CO2) in extraordinarily complex natural systems is folly.